ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2023
Collaborative decision making is grounded in representations of other people's competence and effort.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training Collaborators for Effective Division of Labor.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Article
- A Quantitative Study Exploring and Comparing Key Factors in Medication Management in the Irish Healthcare Setting.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- People reward others based on their willingness to exert effort.Journal of experimental social psychology · 2025Article
- Optimizing competence in the service of collaboration.Cognitive psychology · 2024Article
- Actual and counterfactual effort contribute to responsibility attributions in collaborative tasks.Cognition · 2023Article
- A (Dis-)information Theory of Revealed and Unrevealed Preferences: Emerging Deception and Skepticism via Theory of Mind.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
By collaborating with others, humans can pool their limited knowledge, skills, and resources to achieve goals that outstrip the abilities of any one person. What cognitive capacities make human collaboration possible? Here, we propose that collaboration is grounded in an intuitive understanding of how others think and of what they can do-in other words, of their mental states and competence. We present a belief-desire-competence framework that formalizes this proposal by extending existing models of commonsense psychological reasoning. Our framework predicts that agents recursively reason how much effort they and their partner will allocate to a task, based on the rewards at stake and on their own and their collaborator's competence. Across three experiments (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.